If you look at a list of their acquisitions, you can see why they have 20 million lines of code in a single code base. Merging and kludging generates a lot of overhead.
As much respect as I have for Joel and his experience, some of his beliefs are just wrong in the world of software engineering.
That's because he is often making ignorant statements based on inexperience. This is prevalent in the software industry, where some guru who is very good at apples gets an audience for his statements on oranges.
You really have to wonder how much companies pay for product placement in these articles. I counted at least 10 companies besides Intuit getting explicit mention with some product of theirs.
What difference does your ability to try to come punch me in the face make? I thought if you got the other person to take a swing at you, then you've won the debate.
When an author needs to explain parts of some THING or some THEORY, using the terms that the reader is likely to encounter in further reading is of benefit to the reader, and shouldn't be avoided.
There you go using jargon words like "theory", which, the right-wing has clearly demonstrated, is a difficult word to understand.
The OP of this thread detailed a laundry list of flaws. His final quote should have been, "What doesn't kill you makes you stronger." Sure, you get used to C's limitations ("great power"[sic]) and get used to programming in it, but that doesn't make it easy. Constant vigilance against C's limitations means you are wasting a lot of time that could be applied to problem solving of the task at hand.
Do tell! Did you use a blue police box or was it a modified delorean, or some other method? Any stock tips?
Obviously a modified DeLorean, as a police box would be way to pedestrian for a Romney supporter. However the police will be happy to see that none of the 99% ever get close enough to smudge your DeLorean.
An independent internet is exactly what will happen when the need drives it. The internet is just a communication network, and communication networks have a long history of going underground when forced to by oppression.
And yet some of the best things in life are free. It would be nice to add a world class education to that list.
A world class education is already on that list, but proving you have a world class education isn't. The degree is for getting paid for your knowledge. Having a major university name on the degree bumps up your perceived worth, even though the knowledge could have been obtained much cheaper.
People have it in their heads that the crazier the class diagram, the easier the software will be to maintain. Obviously this isn't the case.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by "crazier", but you later seem to equate it to more classes later.
The more complete the class diagram, the easier the software is to maintain. This statement requires a qualifier: Good separation of concerns must be done before class modeling begins. i.e., subject matters must be divided into independent entities, which are then individually modeled.
"Complete" means all the information possible (about the subject matter being modeled) is exposed by the class model. If this is done, your state and procedural models will be much simpler, changes will be easier to handle, and reuse possibilities will be wider. "Complete" excludes implementation decisions (unless that's the subject matter being modeled), so this kind of path is hard (impossible?) to follow in 3GL.
I haven't been programming professionally long enough to have a really good perspective on the overall market
Programming isn't about the market. The market chases it's tail. Good programmers become software engineers, because they eventually get tired of chasing their tail. They realize that learning something new to make their code a little better pales in comparison to applying known processes to make their code a lot better. Unfortunately, the number of bad programmers vastly outweighs the number of good programmers. This is why the number of (3GL) programming languages has exploded. The bad programmers are looking for a fix at the wrong level of abstraction, and they are wasting a lot of good programmers' time.
You forgot the new ideas part of the equation. New perspectives can often bring new ideas. Of course, this doesn't necessarily require a certain age range. I've seen a lot of companies with aging work forces, whose primary problem is that they are stuck in a less than optimal development configuration. They look for more people rather than more efficiency, even though changing their development configuration would be many times more profitable. i.e., they are blind to the real need.
you may want to keep in mind that a level playing field (with no protectionism) is great if you're a Chinese worker making $1 an hour--not so fucking great if you're an American or European worker getting paid many times that.
A truly level playing field would also mean a level standard of living. Worker rights, household wealth, and environmental quality would be the same everywhere. We'll never see that, so we'll never see a "free market".
Actually Microsoft haters should view this as bad news, because it might lead to Ballmer being replaced by someone competent. What Microsoft needs is someone who turns the company away from the anti-compete, monopoly stances; this is what most of the haters are really against. Of course, Microsoft has the Windows albatross around their neck, and it has lock-in built into it. How long would it take for Microsoft to make Windows a good choice to compete in an open market? Could they survive embracing ODF in Office, releasing their licenses on OS/2, dropping Direct for open hardware interface standards, porting their application software to Linux...?
It's hard to believe this ignorant rant got modded as insightful. The poster and all the people who modded the post as insightful really need to go do some research on what constitutes a monopoly and then research what constitutes monopoly abuse (reading the Microsoft vs. DOJ findings of fact would be a good starting point).
The iPad isn't sufficiently technically superior to warrant a call for iPad without iOS. It also isn't a cost effective choice. Running another OS on iPad only earns you geek cred. (Among a subset of geeks.) Why bother?
People only get cut out of the loop by their own (in)actions. In the USA, the people have happily traded jobs for consumerism, (a false sense of) security for liberty, etc. Now the stupidity has become obvious, and they are starting to wake up.
Slashdot Mirror
If you look at a list of their acquisitions, you can see why they have 20 million lines of code in a single code base. Merging and kludging generates a lot of overhead.
As much respect as I have for Joel and his experience, some of his beliefs are just wrong in the world of software engineering.
That's because he is often making ignorant statements based on inexperience. This is prevalent in the software industry, where some guru who is very good at apples gets an audience for his statements on oranges.
You really have to wonder how much companies pay for product placement in these articles. I counted at least 10 companies besides Intuit getting explicit mention with some product of theirs.
What difference does your ability to try to come punch me in the face make? I thought if you got the other person to take a swing at you, then you've won the debate.
When an author needs to explain parts of some THING or some THEORY, using the terms that the reader is likely to encounter in further reading is of benefit to the reader, and shouldn't be avoided.
There you go using jargon words like "theory", which, the right-wing has clearly demonstrated, is a difficult word to understand.
your neighborhood UPS or Fedex delivery truck is not refrigerated.
The Schwan truck is refrigerated, but if you're not from a rural area, you might have not seen one. ;-)
The OP of this thread detailed a laundry list of flaws. His final quote should have been, "What doesn't kill you makes you stronger." Sure, you get used to C's limitations ("great power"[sic]) and get used to programming in it, but that doesn't make it easy. Constant vigilance against C's limitations means you are wasting a lot of time that could be applied to problem solving of the task at hand.
Wow! There's an apologist answer if I ever heard one. I have been an embedded programmer for 20 years, and there is no question that C is too hard.
people with an insane, visceral hatred of Microsoft are a small minority.
Actually, I think these people are a majority, but only a minority are knowledgeable enough and willing to expend the effort to do anything about it.
I'm not a fan of Microsoft,
Google is allowing the carriers to run amok with Android
The spotty support for this feature or that feature is a real problem.
The crappy Android devices are a real problem, too.
Classic astroturfing; try to emphasize with audience and then attack the competition.
What rock have you been living under?
Probably a non-technical one. IEEE and ANSI would probably also fall under the little-known category to them.
Do tell! Did you use a blue police box or was it a modified delorean, or some other method? Any stock tips?
Obviously a modified DeLorean, as a police box would be way to pedestrian for a Romney supporter. However the police will be happy to see that none of the 99% ever get close enough to smudge your DeLorean.
An independent internet is exactly what will happen when the need drives it. The internet is just a communication network, and communication networks have a long history of going underground when forced to by oppression.
Wish I had a mod point. This is very insightful.
And yet some of the best things in life are free. It would be nice to add a world class education to that list.
A world class education is already on that list, but proving you have a world class education isn't. The degree is for getting paid for your knowledge. Having a major university name on the degree bumps up your perceived worth, even though the knowledge could have been obtained much cheaper.
People have it in their heads that the crazier the class diagram, the easier the software will be to maintain. Obviously this isn't the case.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by "crazier", but you later seem to equate it to more classes later.
The more complete the class diagram, the easier the software is to maintain. This statement requires a qualifier: Good separation of concerns must be done before class modeling begins. i.e., subject matters must be divided into independent entities, which are then individually modeled.
"Complete" means all the information possible (about the subject matter being modeled) is exposed by the class model. If this is done, your state and procedural models will be much simpler, changes will be easier to handle, and reuse possibilities will be wider. "Complete" excludes implementation decisions (unless that's the subject matter being modeled), so this kind of path is hard (impossible?) to follow in 3GL.
See Executable UML
Of course, the AC was right, and it should only be applied where applicable and appropriate.
I haven't been programming professionally long enough to have a really good perspective on the overall market
Programming isn't about the market. The market chases it's tail. Good programmers become software engineers, because they eventually get tired of chasing their tail. They realize that learning something new to make their code a little better pales in comparison to applying known processes to make their code a lot better. Unfortunately, the number of bad programmers vastly outweighs the number of good programmers. This is why the number of (3GL) programming languages has exploded. The bad programmers are looking for a fix at the wrong level of abstraction, and they are wasting a lot of good programmers' time.
You forgot the new ideas part of the equation. New perspectives can often bring new ideas. Of course, this doesn't necessarily require a certain age range. I've seen a lot of companies with aging work forces, whose primary problem is that they are stuck in a less than optimal development configuration. They look for more people rather than more efficiency, even though changing their development configuration would be many times more profitable. i.e., they are blind to the real need.
I, on the other hand,
am an idiot, because I
work 9 to 5
doing the kind of maintenance the "genius" is too smart for
so the "genius" doesn't get exposed as incompetent.
Give me the
masochistic,
hard-worker any day of the week.
There I fixed that for you. >;->
you may want to keep in mind that a level playing field (with no protectionism) is great if you're a Chinese worker making $1 an hour--not so fucking great if you're an American or European worker getting paid many times that.
A truly level playing field would also mean a level standard of living. Worker rights, household wealth, and environmental quality would be the same everywhere. We'll never see that, so we'll never see a "free market".
An anti-virus software that gets to the root of the problem! :-)
Actually Microsoft haters should view this as bad news, because it might lead to Ballmer being replaced by someone competent. What Microsoft needs is someone who turns the company away from the anti-compete, monopoly stances; this is what most of the haters are really against. Of course, Microsoft has the Windows albatross around their neck, and it has lock-in built into it. How long would it take for Microsoft to make Windows a good choice to compete in an open market? Could they survive embracing ODF in Office, releasing their licenses on OS/2, dropping Direct for open hardware interface standards, porting their application software to Linux ...?
Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly, it expired under the settlement:
Oh good! I'll be able to go into Best Buy and get a $300 PC with Linux preloaded now. ???
It's hard to believe this ignorant rant got modded as insightful. The poster and all the people who modded the post as insightful really need to go do some research on what constitutes a monopoly and then research what constitutes monopoly abuse (reading the Microsoft vs. DOJ findings of fact would be a good starting point).
The iPad isn't sufficiently technically superior to warrant a call for iPad without iOS. It also isn't a cost effective choice. Running another OS on iPad only earns you geek cred. (Among a subset of geeks.) Why bother?
People only get cut out of the loop by their own (in)actions. In the USA, the people have happily traded jobs for consumerism, (a false sense of) security for liberty, etc. Now the stupidity has become obvious, and they are starting to wake up.